VBDL Ltd., (the Builder) is a company engaged in the business of construction of multi-storey flats in Mumbai. It started working on a project named as 'Sare Jahan Complex' in Panvel, Navi Mumbai. At the site, the builde

CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · December 2022
VBDL Ltd., (the Builder) is a company engaged in the business of construction of multi-storey flats in Mumbai. It started working on a project named as 'Sare Jahan Complex' in Panvel, Navi Mumbai. At the site, the builder opened its office and employed two persons named as Sonali and Kamal, to book flats, receive money from the prospective buyers through cheques, and to do all other managerial, supervisory and administrative work. Besides Sonali and Kamal, one peon was also appointed for their office purposes. While Sonali was taking care of the in-office work, whereas Kamal was overseeing the field duty, like inspection of the work done by the labours, purchase of building raw materials etc. The builder engaged KCPL, a contractor company engaged in the construction work. The KCPL provided the labours at site, to do the civil work. One day, an Inspector came to site for checking, whether adequate safety measures are being followed on not. During his inspection, he observed that some labours have defective vision and some labours are deaf too. He prepared a detailed report and summoned to the contractor to give explanation. Amrish, who is a regular employee of KCPL was given the task of pulling the chain, operated through electricity, to lift the mixture of cement and concrete. One day, while he was doing this work, the chain broke and fell down on the land which caused a serious bodily injury to Amrish. Sonali's father Hari Ram is having a small piece of land in a village near by Panvel. Hari Ram thought to construct a dwelling house for his family. So he contacted a person named Ashutosh, who takes contracts for small house projects (not the multi-storey project) costing around 15-20 lakh rupees. Ashutosh agreed to construct the house for Hari Ram for a total cost of 15 lakh rupees including the building material, labour cost, sanitary and electrical fittings and flooring. Based on the above fact, answer the following questions: Amrish got serious bodily injury due to the accident happened at the site. Who shall be treated as employer in this case, the Builder or KCPL? Also state whether the employer shall be liable to pay compensation?

Answer & Explanation:

In terms of Section 2(1)(i) of the Building & Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, 'Employer', in relation to an establishment, means the owner thereof, and includes: in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Government, directly without any contractor, the authority specified in this behalf, or where no authority is specified, the head of the department; in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or on behalf of a local authority or other establishment, directly without any contractor, the chief executive officer of that authority or establishment; in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or through a contractor, or by the employment of building workers supplied by a contractor, the contractor; Hence, in the given case the contractor (KCPL) shall be treated as employer of Amrish. Section 3(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. However, the employer shall not be so liable: in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days; in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to: the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employees. Assuming none of the exceptions apply, KCPL, as the employer, shall be liable to pay compensation to Amrish.

Topics: Employee's Compensation Act, 1923; Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic